S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No detailed finding – Matter remanded to CIT (A) to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order.
Devender Kumar v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 419 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No detailed finding – Matter remanded to CIT (A) to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order.
Devender Kumar v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 419 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Addition set aside Levy of penalty is held to be not valid – Not specifying the charge – Levy of penalty is not valid – Penalty on account of deemed concealment is unsustainable as the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to any incriminating material or income declared by the assesssee [ S. 132(4) , 153A, Explanation 5, 274 ]
Dy. CIT v. Prakash Chand Sharma (2020)79 ITR 386( Jaipur) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Limitation -Reassessment – Issue subject of revision pertaining to original assessment – Original assessment passed on 16-1 2014 – Revision order on 26- 2 -2019 – Revision is barred by limitation , revision could have been taken up to 31 -3 -2016 [ S. 80IA ,80IB 143(3), 147 , 148, 263(2) ]
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 79 ITR 636 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Accommodation entry -Principal Commissioner not agreeing with manner of enquiry conducted by Assessing Officer — PCIT cannot substitute his own reasons- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.143(3) ]
Arihant Technology P. Ltd. v PCIT (2020)79 ITR 119 ( Delhi) ( Trib)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Remand proceedings – Claim accepted by the Assessing Officer – Deletion of addition by the CIT (A) is held to be justified [ S.250, 253 ]
Dy. CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd. (2020) 79 ITR 276 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – Revision – When appeal was pending revision application was filed – Revision is held to be not valid – Cost of Rs 40000 was imposed upon assessee- CIT(A) is directed to decide the matter on merits [ S. 249, 264 ]
Digjam Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 263/ 193 DTR 237/206 TTJ 734 (Rajkot) (Trib)S. 244A : Refund – Interest on refunds -Intimation — Assessable in year granted — If interest adjusted with prior tax liability of earlier years and paid to Government account — No need of separate intimation.
Fis Solutions (India) P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 656 (Pune) (Trib)S.234E: Fee-Default in furnishing the statements- Deduction of tax at source —Amendment enabling levy of late fee for default in furnishing statement brought in with effect from 1-6-2015 — Prospective in nature — Levy of late fees while processing statement of tax deducted at source before amendment — Not sustainable.[ S.200A ]
Oswal Computers and Amp Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib) Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib) Padmavati Retail India Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib)S.147: Reassessment —Wrong facts and figures- Non-application of mind —Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 68, 148 ]
Bhagwant Merchants P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 595 ( Kol) (Trib)S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Cash credits – All material facts were disclosed in the original assessment proceedings -Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.68 , 148, 194A ]
Bajaj Parivahan P. Ltd. v ITO (2020) 79 ITR 705 ( Kol) (Trib)